Tacitus - Tumblr Posts
How Can Good Exegesis Make Bad Theology?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
The Canonical Context
This principle suggests that we should read the Books of the Bible not as distinct, individual compositions but rather as parts of a larger *canonical context*, that is, as part of the “canon” of Scripture. In other words, instead of evaluating each book separately in terms of its particular historical, literary, and editorial development, this principle focuses instead on its final canonical format that was legitimized by the various communities of faith. The idea is that since the redacted version or “final cut,” as it were, is considered “authoritative” by the different communities of faith, then this format should hold precedence over all previous versions or drafts.
Moreover, this concept holds that despite the fact that the Biblical Books were written by a number of different authors, at different times, in different places, using different languages, nevertheless the “canonical context” emphasizes the need to read these Books in dialogue with one another, as if they are part of a larger whole. So, the hermeneutical focus is not on the historical but rather on the canonical context. The hermeneutical guidelines of the canon therefore suggest that we might gain a better understanding of the larger message of Scripture by reading these Books as if they were interrelated with all the others, rather than as separate, diverse, and distinct sources. The premise is that the use of this type of context leads to sound Biblical theology.
——-
Theology
Theology is primarily concerned with the synthesis of the diverse voices within Scripture in order to grasp the overarching message of the complete Biblical revelation. It deals with Biblical epistemology and belief, either through systematic analysis and development of passages (systematic theology) or through the running themes of the entire Bible (Biblical theology). It addresses eternity and the transcendent, metaphysical or supernatural world. And it balances individual Scriptural interpretations by placing them within a larger theoretical framework. The premise is that there is a broader theological context in which each and every detailed exegesis coalesces to form a coherent whole! It’s as if the Bible is a single Book that contains a complete and wide-ranging revelation! It is under the auspices of theology, then, that the canonical context comes into play.
——-
Exegesis
The critical interpretation of Scriptural texts is known as “exegesis.” Its task is to use various methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a definitive explanation of Scripture! Exegesis provides the temporal, linguistic, grammatical, and syntactic context, analysis, and meaning of a text. It furnishes us with a critical understanding of the authorial intent, but only in relation to the specific and limited context of the particular text in question. It is the task of theology to further assess it in terms of its relation and compatibility to the overall Biblical revelation! One of the things that exegesis tries to establish is the composition’s historical setting or context, also known as “historical criticism.” This approach inquires about the author and his audience, the occasion and dating of the composition, the unique terms and concepts therein, the meaning of the overall message, and, last but not least, the *style* in which the message is written, otherwise known as the “genre.” While the author’s other writings on the topic are pivotal to understanding what he means, nothing is more important than the *genre* or the form in which his writing is presented.
——-
The Analogy of Scripture
One of the most important hermeneutical principles of exegesis is called “the analogy of Scripture” (Lat. ‘analogia Scripturae’). In short, it means that Scripture should interpret Scripture. This principle requires that the implicit must be explained by the explicit. In other words, the exegesis of unclear or ambiguous parts of Scripture must be explained by clear and didactic ones that address the exact same topic. That means that one Biblical Book could very well explain another. For example, the New Testament (NT) Book of Ephesians 1.9-10 seems to demystify Galatians 4.4. This principle is based on the “revealed” inspiration (Gk. θεόπνευστος) of Scripture:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and
for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3.16
NRSV).
As for those scholars who refuse to take the NT’s alleged “pseudepigrapha” seriously because of their *apparent* false attribution, let me remind them that the most renowned textual scholars of the 20th century, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, acknowledged that even alleged “forged” works could still be “inspired!” It’s important to realize that just because these works may be written by unknown authors who may have attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of famous Biblical characters doesn’t mean that the subject-matter is equally false. The addition of amanuenses (secretaries) further complicates the issue.
So, returning to our subject, the analogy of Scripture allows the Bible to define its own terms, symbols, and phrases. It is via the analogy of Scripture, which defines the many and varied parts, that the broader canonical context is established, namely, the principle that the various Biblical Books form a coherent whole from which a larger theological system can emerge.
And, of course, interdisciplinary studies——such as archaeology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, epistemology, and philosophy——contribute to both systematic and Biblical theology by presenting their particular findings, concepts, and theoretical ideas.
——-
Testing the Legitimacy of these Principles
In explaining how these principles work in tandem, I’d like to put my personal and unique theology to the test. I have raised the following question: “What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future event?” The immediate reaction of Christian apologetics or heresiology would be to revert to “dogmatic theology” (i.e., the dogmas or articles of faith) and the scholarly consensus, which state that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Really? Let’s consider some historical facts. There are no eyewitnesses! And there are no first-hand accounts! Although the following references were once thought to be multiple attestations or proofs of Jesus’ existence, nevertheless both the Tacitus and Josephus accounts are now considered to be either complete or partial forgeries, and therefore do not shed any light on Jesus’ historicity. One of the staunch proponents of the historical Jesus position is the textual scholar Bart Ehrman, who, surprisingly, said this on his blog:
. . . Paul says almost *NOTHING* about the
events of Jesus’ lifetime. That seems weird
to people, but just read all of his letters.,
Paul never mentions Jesus healing anyone,
casting out a demon, doing any other
miracle, arguing with Pharisees or other
leaders, teaching the multitudes, even
speaking a parable, being baptized, being
transfigured, going to Jerusalem, being
arrested, put on trial, found guilty of
blasphemy, appearing before Pontius Pilate
on charges of calling himself the King of the
Jews, being flogged, etc. etc. etc. It’s a
very, very long list of what he doesn’t tell us
about.
Therefore, there appears to be a literary discrepancy regarding the historicity of Jesus in the canonical context between the gospels and the epistles. And, as I will show in due time, there are many, many passages in the epistles that seem to contradict dogmatic theology’s belief in the historiographical nature of the gospels. So, if they want to have a sound theology, exegetes should give equal attention to the epistles. Why?
First, the epistles precede the gospels by several decades. In fact, they comprise the earliest recorded writings of the NT that circulated among the Christian churches (cf. Col. 4.16).
Second, unlike the gospels——which are essentially *theological* narratives that are largely borrowed from the Old Testament (OT)——the epistles are *expositional* writings that offer real, didactic and practical solutions and discuss spiritual principles and applications within an actual, historical, or eschatological context.
Third, according to Biblical scholarship, the gospels are not historiographical accounts or biographies, even though historical places and figures are sometimes mentioned. That is to say, the gospels are not giving us history proper. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a narrative that is borrowed from 2 Kings 4.40-44. The parallels and verbal agreements are virtually identical. And this is a typical example of the rest of the narratives. For instance, when Jesus speaks of the damned and says that “their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48), few people know that this saying is actually derived from Isaiah 66.24. In other words, the gospels demonstrate a literary dependence on the OT that is called, “intertextuality.”
Fourth, the gospels are like watching a Broadway play. They are full of plots, subplots, theatrical devices (e.g. Aristotelian rhetoric; Homeric parallels), literary embellishments, dialogues, characters, and the like. Conversely, the epistles have none of these elements. They are straightforward and matter of fact. That’s why Biblical interpreters are expected to interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the NT epistles——which are the more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture——must clarify the implicit meaning of the gospel literature. As you will see, the epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the actual timeline of Christ’s *one-and-only* visitation!
Fifth, whereas the gospels’ literary genre is mainly •theological•——that is to say, “pseudo-historical”——the genre of the epistolary literature of the NT is chiefly •expositional.• So, the question arises, which of the two genres is giving us the real deal: is it the “theological narrative” or the “expository writing”?
In order to answer this question, we first need to consider some of the differences in both genres. For example, although equally “inspired,” the gospels include certain narratives that are unanimously rejected as “unhistorical” by both Biblical scholars and historians alike. Stories like the slaughter of the innocents, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, and so on, are not considered to be historical. By contrast, the epistles never once mention the aforesaid stories, nor is there any mention of the Nativity, the virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, and the like. Why? Because the Epistles are NOT “theological.” They’re expository writings whose intention is to give us the “facts” as they really are!
Bottom line, the epistles give us a far more accurate picture of Jesus’ *visitation* than the gospels.
In conclusion, it appears that the gospels conceal Jesus far more effectively than they reveal him.
——-
Proof-text and Coherence Fallacies
The “proof-text fallacy” comprises the idea of putting together a number of out-of-context passages in order to validate a particular theological point that’s often disparagingly called “a private interpretation.” But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn these principles on their head. Classical Christianity typically determines heresy by assessing the latter’s overall view. If it doesn’t fit within the existing theological schema it is said to be heretical. Thus, dogmatic theology sets the theological standard against which all other theories are measured. They would argue that good exegesis doesn’t necessarily guarantee good theology, and can lead to a “coherence fallacy.” In other words, even if the exegesis of a string of proof-texts is accurate, the conclusion may not be compatible with the overall existing theology. This would be equivalent to a coherence fallacy, that is to say, the illusion of Biblical coherence.
By the same token, I can argue that traditional, historical-Jesus exegesis of certain proof-texts might be accurate but it may not fit the theology of an eschatological Christ, as we find in the epistles (e.g., Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 12.5). That would equally constitute a coherence fallacy. So, these guidelines tend to discourage independent proof-texting apart from a systematic coherency of Scripture. But what if the supposed canonical context is wrong? What if the underlying theological assumption is off? What then? So, the $64,000 question is, who can accurately determine the big picture? And who gets to decide?
For example, I think that we have confused Biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. In my view, the theological purpose of the gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story *beforehand* so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is *written in advance* (cf. מַגִּ֤יד מֵֽרֵאשִׁית֙ אַחֲרִ֔ית [declaring the end from the beginning], Isa. 46.9-10; προεπηγγείλατο [promised beforehand], Rom. 1.2; προγνώσει [foreknowledge], Acts 2.22-23; προκεχειροτονημένοις [to appoint beforehand], Acts 10.40-41; ερχόμενα [things to come], Jn 16.13)!
So, if we exchange the theology of the gospels for that of the epistles we’ll find a completely different theology altogether, one in which the coherence of Scripture revolves around the *end-times*! For example, in 2 Pet. 1.16–21, all the explanations in vv. 16-18 are referring to the future. That’s why verse 19 concludes: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (cf. 1 Pet. 1.10-11; 1 Jn 2.28).
In response, Dogmatic Theology would probably say that such a conclusion is at odds with the canonical context and that it seems to be based on autonomous proof-texting that is obviously out of touch with the broader theological teaching of Scripture. Really? So the so-called “teaching” of Scripture that Jesus died in Antiquity is a nonnegotiable, foregone conclusion? What if the basis upon which this gospel teaching rests is itself a proof-text fallacy that is out of touch with the teaching of the *epistles*? For example, there are numerous passages in the epistles that place the timeline of Jesus’ life (i.e., his birth, death, and resurrection) in *eschatological* categories (e.g., 2 Thess. 2.1-3; Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.10-11, 20; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d; 22.7). The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of •eschatology• in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19). Therefore, according to the *epistolary literature*, Jesus is not a historical but rather an “eschatological” figure! Given that the NT epistles are part of the Biblical *canon,* their overall message holds equal value with that of the NT gospels, since they, too, are an integral part of the canonical context! To that extent, even the gospels concede that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (see Lk. 17.30; cf. 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7)!
What is more, if the canonical context demands that we coalesce the different Biblical texts as if we’re reading a single Book, then the overall “prophetic” message of Revelation must certainly play an important role therein. The Book of Revelation places not only the timeline (12.5) but also the testimony to Jesus (19.10b) in “prophetic” categories:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to
them, God will add to that person the
plagues described in this book; if anyone
takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God will take away that
person’s share in the tree of life and in the
holy city, which are described in this book
(Rev. 22.18-19 NRSV).
Incidentally, the Book of Revelation is considered to be an epistle. Thus, it represents, confirms, and validates the overarching *prophetic theme* or eschatological “theology” of the epistolary literature. That is not to say that the •theology• of the epistles stands alone and apart from that of the OT canon. Far from it! Even the *theology* of the OT confirms the earthy, end-time Messiah of the epistles (cf. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7-9, 15-18; Zech. 12.9-10)! As a matter of fact, mine is the *only* view that appropriately combines the end-time messianic expectations of the Jews with Christian Scripture!
Does this sound like a proof-text or coherence fallacy? If it does, it’s because you’re evaluating it from the theology of the gospels. If, on the other hand, you assess it using the theology of the epistles, it will seem to be in-context or in-sync with it. So, the theological focus and coherency of Scripture will change depending on which angle you view it from.
——-
Visions of the Resurrection
There are quite a few scholars that view the so-called resurrection of Christ not as a historical phenomenon but rather as a visionary experience. And this seems to be the theological message of the NT as well (cf. 2 Tim. 2.17-18; 2 Thess. 2.1-3). For example, Lk. 24.23 explicitly states that the women “had indeed seen a vision.” Lk. 24.31 reads: “he [Jesus] vanished from their sight.” And Lk. 24.37 admits they “thought that they were seeing a ghost.” Here are some of the statements that scholars have made about the resurrection, which do not necessarily disqualify them as believers:
The resurrection itself is not an event of
past history. All that historical criticism can
establish is that the first disciples came to
believe the resurrection (Rudolph
Bultmann, ‘The New Testament and
Mythology,’ in Kerygma and Myth: A
Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner
Bartsch, trans. Reginald H. Fuller [London:
S.P.C.K, 1953-62], 38, 42).
When the evangelists spoke about the
resurrection of Jesus, they told stories
about apparitions or visions (John Dominic
Crossan, ‘A Long Way from Tipperary: A
Memoir’ [San Francisco:
HarperSanFransisco, 2000], 164-165).
At the heart of the Christian religion lies a
vision described in Greek by Paul as
ophehe—-“he was seen.” And Paul himself,
who claims to have witnessed an
appearance asserted repeatedly “I have
seen the Lord.” So Paul is the main source
of the thesis that a vision is the origin of the
belief in resurrection ... (Gerd Lüdemann,
‘The Resurrection of Jesus: History,
Experience, Theology.’ Translated by John
Bowden. [London: SCM, 1994], 97,
100).
It is undisputable that some of the followers
of Jesus came to think that he had been
raised from the dead, and that something
had to have happened to make them think
so. Our earliest records are consistent on
this point, and I think they provide us with
the historically reliable information in one
key aspect: the disciples’ belief in the
resurrection was based on visionary
experiences. I should stress it was visions,
and nothing else, that led to the first
disciples to believe in the resurrection (Bart
D. Ehrman, ‘How Jesus Became God: The
Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from
Galilee’ [New York: Harper One, 2014],
183-184).
Ehrman sides with the *visionary language* that Luke, Bultmann, Crossan, and Lüdemann use. In the words of NT textual critic Kurt Aland:
It almost then appears as if Jesus were a
mere PHANTOM . . .
——-
Exegetical Application
I deliberately stay away from theology when I exegete Scripture precisely because it will taint the evidence with presuppositions, assumptions, and speculations that are not in the text. Thus, instead of focusing on the authorial intent hermeneutic, it will inevitably superimpose out-of-context meanings and create an eisegesis. All this, of course, is courtesy of confirmation bias.
So, I think one of the reasons why we’ve done so poorly in understanding, for example, the story of Jesus is because we have mixed-up exegesis with theology. When theology drives the exegesis, then the exegesis becomes blind and erroneous.
My method of exegesis is very simple. I see EXACTLY what the text *says,* EXACTLY *how* it says it. I don’t add or subtract anything, and I don’t speculate, guess, or theorize based on existing philosophies or theologies. The minute we go outside *the analogy of scripture,* that’s when we start to speculate. And that’s how we err. In short, let the Scriptures tell you what it means. Thus, the best interpretation is no interpretation at all!
——-
Conclusion
To find the truth, we must consider all the evidence objectively. Evangelicals, for instance, would be biased if they didn’t consider the academic standpoint even if, at times, it seems to be guided by liberal theology. In this way, they will be in a better position to consider objectively all the possibilities and probabilities regarding the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s because the truth usually touches all points of view . . .
One of the exegetical stumbling blocks is our inability to view the gospels as “inspired metaphors.” Given their literary dependence on the OT, it appears as if the gospels themselves are “inspired parables.”
So, if the epistolary literature, which is both expositional and explicit, seems to contradict these so-called “theological parables,” then it becomes quite obvious that the “theology” of the gospels fails to meet scholarly and academic parameters. And, therefore, the epistolary literature must be given more serious attention and consideration!
Our exegetical shortcomings often stem from forced or anachronistic interpretations that are based on *theological speculation* and conjecture rather than on detailed exegesis. Even the Biblical translations themselves are not immune to the interpretative process, whether they be of dynamic or formal equivalence.
That’s why I have developed an exegetical system and have demonstrated the effectiveness of its approach to the study of the Biblical Christ. Accordingly, I argue that the epistles are the primary *keys* to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s ***ONLY*** visitation! Hence, I leave you with one final rhetorical question:
What if the crucifixion of Christ is a future
event?
The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles
First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.
Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.
Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.”!
Was There An Oral Tradition?
The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.
There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition
First, the gospels are written anonymously.
Second, there are no eyewitnesses.
Third, there are no firsthand accounts.
Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.
When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?
Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:
“The majority of New Testament scholars
agree that the Gospels do not contain
eyewitness accounts; but that they present
the theologies of their communities rather
than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki
“Many biblical scholars view the discussion
of historicity as secondary, given that
gospels were primarily written as
theological documents rather than historical
accounts”. — Wiki
Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.
8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible
What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?
First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.
Mark 1.28
“News about him spread quickly over the
whole region of Galilee”.
Mt. 4.24
“News about him spread all over Syria.”
Matthew 4.25
“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and
the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea
and from beyond the Jordan.”
So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?
Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.
Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.
Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.
Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.
Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:
“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th
century and from the Benedictine abbey at
Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving
copy of the passage describing Christians.
Scholars generally agree that these copies
were written at Monte Cassino and the end
of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus
cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of
the two abbots of that name at the abbey
during that period”. — Wiki
Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.
Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!
But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?
Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.
As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.
Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?
First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):
“For I would have you know, brothers and
sisters, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not of human invention. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I
taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.
There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ
I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.
How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?
